<I haven't read the book either but it seems pretty clear that wells is criticizing the version of Darwinian evolution that is being promoted specifically by Coyne in his book.>
I'd have to read it to come to that conclusion to be honest, that statement by Coyne seems to be a 'broad for the public' summation. It looks to me that Wells is using the statement as a segway for the use of the much known problem with the speed of progression problem (random mutation assumption?) in order to refute "Darwinism" (whatever that is) as a whole. I'm just assuming this because there doesn't seem to be anything there that would be specific to a current book, AND his (rather grandiose) claim to have falsifed "Darwinism". Ouch!
<That seems like a bit of a red herring. Wells is directly challenging specific proofs that Coyne is using to establish his main argument. Whats wrong with that?>
First of all, what he is challenging is not new and is specific to certain assumptions of evolutionary theor(ies) but NOT the whole, and certainly not his implication of "Darwinism" being falsified. "Coyne's book contains untenable assumptions on evolution (or Darwinsim)" would be a better title, although not very attention grabbing.
Let's say I'm wrong above and Well's is refuting the book specifically... I havent read it so I'm not sure. BUT, Wells ISNT directly challenging Coyne... the title of the article says Dawinsim is false he's clearly claiming to challenge something much larger than the radiation problem.. That's why I said in the beginning of my post that his title really isn't helpful at all. I looks to me like he's challenging 'evolution'. He's got a long way to go IMHO.
Now I know (on the face of it), in the meat of the article appears to be addressing Coyne's book and his examples more specifically, and maybe he is I haven't read it, but his title is certainly misleading... as his lack of liturature sighted on the topic. Further, I and am not likely to read Coynes book as the issues listed by Wells are not new.
DAK |
